• Announcements

    • Kisa the Cat

      World Watch Archiving Project

      Hello everyone, Please read this thread before posting to World Watch Thank you.
    • Kisa the Cat

      Avenues May/June   05/09/17

      Hello AVENites! The newest edition of AVENues is now ready! Our theme this time was "ace connections".  May/June
Heart

Small Change to the Terms of Service, Effective Immediately

79 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Pan. said:

Well it's frustrating when you see people saying "I'm trans because I have a girls body but I don't wear lipstick and don't like pink".. but I'm assuming that explaining that that's a very normal thing and many normal "cis" women are the same, meaning that's not trans, is warnable under that new change? I don't see what's so wrong about helping people understand they're actually totally normal (isn't that better than being confused about something as basic as who can wear lipstick??).. but urgh, AVEN. 

 Or you have people like Riley Dennis who claim to be a non-binary transwoman and a lesbian and yet they have said they don't wanna transition nor do they experience dysphoria... so its like, why are you calling yourself a transwoman if you dont experience dysphoria? People like that are arguably transphobic according to some broad definitions because by calling themselves trans they are belittling the suffering of actual trans people, the ones who experience dysphoria. Now, don't get me wrong, Riley Dennis can call herself whatever she wants, however calling themselves trans in completely inaccurate because by its definition, to be trans you are experiencing dysphoria (at least according to science and not bullshit websites like transequality.org or whatever the sources Riley uses to support her reasoning), but thats JUST MY OPINION SO REMAIN CALM, WORDS WONT HURT YOU I PROMISE

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, King of the Forest said:

 Or you have people like Riley Dennis who claim to be a non-binary transwoman 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ♣Ryan♣ said:

 

LOL apparently Riley thinks it is

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is possible guys, but generally people use one or the other... if you don't understand the nuances of a specific person's gender, you can't really judge how they define themself... often trans people end up shortening their genders - eg; I'm genderflux, masculine. I flip between transmale and libramasc. People don't know these words. So I use things like my description on the left (guy with varying amounts of guyness), which i think is fairly easy to understand. I refer to myself as transmasculine because most people know it. Some people are also bigender, which means they either flip between two different genders or the feel both of them simultaneously. Someone could feel both nonbinary and transmale XD

 

TLDR;Nonbinary and Transmale aren't mutually exclusive, there's this thing called bigender :) 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Puck said:

To be clear, this change is not a change to what gets a warning. There is no shift in how admods judge posts, they will be judged in the exact same way as in the past. The change is simply that if someone gets a warning for transphobic content, they will be banned from the Gender forum for the time of their warning.

 

Typically, this content falls under bigoted, invalidating, or insulting content breaches of ToS.

 

When it comes to commenting on peoples chosen labels, the rule of thumb holds that no one on AVEN can tell someone else what their label is but one can offer thoughts and share experience. In your example, a user with those feelings could say to another users "There are lots of cis women, too, who don't enjoy wearing lipstick nor do they enjoy the color pink." That way, the poster isn't saying that the other users aren't trans*, they are simply pointing out that such opinions don't exempt one from the possibility of being cis.

 

Also, if you can, please be gentle with your use of "normal" here. Those who identify as trans* are normal people, they just have a different experience to go through to find the best way to be themselves than the majority do in most cultures. Just saying cis works fine, people understand what one is saying when they say that :) Saying "that's a normal feeling" is fine, but suggesting that a trans* person doesn't act like a "normal" person can be hurtful.

Could also point out that a lot of transwoman don't care to fit stereotypes either and being trans is more complex than that...

 

but also  we shouldn't jump to conclusions about someone identity and assume that people are cis from one thing, maybe they have other reasons they didn't say even...

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, King of the Forest said:

 Or you have people like Riley Dennis who claim to be a non-binary transwoman and a lesbian and yet they have said they don't wanna transition nor do they experience dysphoria... so its like, why are you calling yourself a transwoman if you dont experience dysphoria? People like that are arguably transphobic according to some broad definitions because by calling themselves trans they are belittling the suffering of actual trans people, the ones who experience dysphoria. Now, don't get me wrong, Riley Dennis can call herself whatever she wants, however calling themselves trans in completely in accurate because by its definition to be trans you are experiencing dysphoria (at least according to science and not bullshit websites like transequality.org or whatever the sources Riley uses to support her reasoning), but thats JUST MY OPINION SO REMAIN CALM, WORDS WONT HURT YOU I PROMISE

(As we are now off the topic of this policy, I feel it important to make clear this post is from me as a user, not as staff)

 

The American Psychiatric Association's most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, also known as the DSM-5, (which is used, or relied upon, by clinicians, researchers, psychotic drug regulation agencies, health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, the legal system, and policy makers together) in reference to gender dysphoria (warning, that links to a download as I couldn't find an online hosted version of this announcement, my apologies):

 

Quote

DSM-5 aims to avoid stigma and ensure clinical care for individuals who see and feel themselves to be a different gender than their assigned gender... It is important to note that gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder. The critical element of gender dysphoria is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition.

The point to remember is that gender dysphoria is about the distress caused by one's gender, not just that one feels they identify in a different way. Gender dysphoria is a clinical condition that should only be diagnosed by a licensed practitioner. One can be trans* and not experience the distress (especially if they are in an accepting environment that makes them feel safe to explore themselves, which some communities have enabled people to feel). Unless one is licensed, it is wise to be very careful with how one talks about mental disorders in an environment like AVEN's where many vulnerable people come for answers.

 

 

As for the terms, I personally don't always get them, but I find what's important to the person using them is just to be understood. It effects me not at all what label they go by, so they can use whichever they want and I'll personally be game to listen. Sure, some I might not really get, but if I'm not resistant to the idea, usually folks are willing to explain what they are trying to say and I can walk away with a better understanding of the whole situation.

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Edit: Holy cow this thread is moving fast. I started writing this response an hour ago, and I think it's still valid, so I'll post it anyways. Here goes:

 

As for the mansplaining topic, I have some thoughts I'd like to share. Please keep in mind that these are my own thoughts and a reflection of how I would argue in the case of a warn, but all disciplinary actions are a team discussion and are come to by consensus, so I cannot guarantee this is how it would play out. If, however, anyone feels that they have been wrongly suspended from Gender Discussion for a warn that was sexist but not transphobic, then I encourage them to appeal it. So here is my take on the difference between sexism and gender identity policing. I'll use an example first, in the spoilers because it's a bit long and contains an example of transphobia, and then try to follow it up with my generalized philosophy.


 

Spoiler

 

I'm a femininely-presenting AFAB. I'm also working on my PhD in physics. So, say we're all having a discussion about the electromagnetic force, and someone (say, a trans man) comes up and tries to explain to me what the electromagnetic force is. I can react in several ways.

 

1) One way is to say "Hey there, I'm actually a physicist and I study this for a living. Here are some nuances that you may have not understood properly, and here are some sources to back me up on that. And by the way I wrote a paper in Nature on that very topic, so here's a link in case you're interested." That's usually the best way to deal with it. But that takes patience if it happens over and over again, and maybe I snap. I could do that many ways, but here are three I'd like to contrast:

 

2) I say "Dude, stop mansplaining! I'm a physicist, you don't think I know exactly how the electromagnetic force works? Get out of here."

 

3) I could say "Girl, stop pretending to be a physicist and stop pretending to be a man. We both know that neither of those are true!".

 

4) "Yeah but you say you're trans too, and all trans people suck at physics!"

 

In #2, I am discounting what he has to say because he's a man, but I'm not invalidating his gender; I could say this to any man, cis or trans. In #3, I am invalidating his gender. So, to me, #2 is sexist but #3 is a gender identity invalidation. And in #4 I'm being transphobic by making a sweeping negative generalization about trans people.

 

 

So. The example above is meant to illustrate what the difference is, to me, between sexism and gender identity invalidation and transphobia. If a statement can be taken as a harmful generalization of everyone of a gender (eg man) regardless of if they are cis or trans, then it's sexism. If a statement is implying or saying that someone is not really the gender they identify as, then it's a gender identity invalidation. And if a statement says or implies that all trans or genderqueer people are lesser in some way, then it's transphobia.

 

Don't get me wrong; it's possible to be sexist and transphobic at the same time. In that case, it is still transphobia, so the suspension would still be applied. But I hope the above helps explain the difference between mansplaining and transphobia.

 

I have to run off for now, but I'll try to be ack to answer any follow up questions in an hour or two. I really appreciate this conversation, and the chance to clarify some definitions.

Edited by Heart
Made the example a tad more clear
10 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fucking Bitch said:

 Or you have people like Riley Dennis who claim to be a non-binary transwoman and a lesbian and yet they have said they don't wanna transition nor do they experience dysphoria... so its like, why are you calling yourself a transwoman if you dont experience dysphoria? People like that are arguably transphobic according to some broad definitions because by calling themselves trans they are belittling the suffering of actual trans people, the ones who experience dysphoria. Now, don't get me wrong, Riley Dennis can call herself whatever she wants, however calling themselves trans in completely inaccurate because by its definition, to be trans you are experiencing dysphoria (at least according to science and not bullshit websites like transequality.org or whatever the sources Riley uses to support her reasoning), but thats JUST MY OPINION SO REMAIN CALM, WORDS WONT HURT YOU I PROMISE

OMG YOU'RE A TRANSPHOBE RILEY DENNIS IS 100% A LESBIAN WHO IS ENTITLED TO SEX WITH OTHER LESBIANS AND IF THEY DON'T WANT RILEY'S PENIS THEN THEY'RE BIGOTED TRANSPHOBES FOR NOT HAVING SEX WITH RILEY!!!

 

Ahaha sorry, it's best not to get me started on Riley Dennis. 

 

 

Riley is very open about having absolutely no interest in transitioning, being very comfortable with his penis, and enjoying heterosexual sex with women. But because he wears eyeliner he demands to be called a "she", identifies as a lesbian, and says you're a transphobe if you wont have sex with him, pretty much. This is why we need more rational people like Blaire White explaining the facts of being transgender, because people like Riley (and Milo Stewart) are belittling the actual suffering of real transpeople, like you said, and it's disgusting T_T

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pan. said:

Blaire White 

 

Omg, Blaire White is my fucking Queen!!! yaass!! :D 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Pan. said:

Riley is very open about having absolutely no interest in transitioning, being very comfortable with his penis, and enjoying heterosexual sex with women. But because he wears eyeliner he demands to be called a "she", identifies as a lesbian, and says you're a transphobe if you wont have sex with him, pretty much. This is why we need more rational people like Blaire White explaining the facts of being transgender, because people like Riley (and Milo Stewart) are belittling the actual suffering of real transpeople, like you said, and it's disgusting T_T

You really DO like Blaire White- even adopting her policy of misgendering anyone you don't like!

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Fucking Bitch said:

Omg, Blaire White is my fucking Queen!!! yaass!! :D 

According to Blaire White I'm not a real trans person- doesn't matter if I'm on HRT, I'm nonbinary and therefore an entitled snowflake who knows nothing about what "real" trans people go through 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ChillaKilla said:

According to Blaire White I'm not a real trans person- doesn't matter if I'm on HRT, I'm nonbinary and therefore an entitled snowflake who knows nothing about what "real" trans people go through 

 I'm not saying everything she stands for is correct or right or wrong, but she does have some valid points and arguments 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care if people say "oh, you're not like those nonbinary people", they and I are both nonbinary and if you diss one "kind" you insult us all. Gatekeeping makes me sick. I don't want my experience and personal transition leveraged against other people with similar gender identities who choose not to transition. I am not here to help anyone invalidate anyone else. If anyone considers me to be their token "nonbinary friend" that makes it okay for you to tear other kinds of enbies down, I'm not your nonbinary friend. I'm your nonbinary worst nightmare.

 

 

This isn't at anyone in particular. Just a general sentiment.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fucking Bitch said:

 I'm not saying everything she stands for is correct or right or wrong, but she does have some valid points and arguments 

So do the other youtubers mentioned, even if those points are much more rare. I'm sure you could find a single sentence one of them said that isn't completely objectionable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ChillaKilla said:

So do the other youtubers mentioned, even if those points are much more rare. I'm sure you could find a single sentence one of them said that isn't completely objectionable.

Its more like the majority of her views I agree with, I don't agree with most of what Milo stewart or Riley Dennis believe...ya know like "All white are people are racist, all cisgender people are transphobic... etc"

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, King of the Forest said:

Its more like the majority of her views I agree with, I don't agree with most of what Milo stewart or Riley Dennis. 

I don't know. I personally have different priorities for who I follow as a commentator, the most important of those being that they don't directly deny or mock my existence. So I personally rather over-exuberance and acceptance other than being more strict.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ChillaKilla said:

I don't know. I personally have different priorities for who I follow as a commentator, the most important of those being that they don't directly deny or mock my existence. So I personally rather over-exuberance and acceptance other than being more strict.

 I can understand that. And I'm sorry you feel your existence is being mocked or denied, but please see that just because she says some things and that I agree with a lot her views doesnt mean that I believe you arent valid, you and your fabulous rainbow beard are very much real to me. Thank you for that btw ^_^

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, King of the Forest said:

 I can understand that. And I'm sorry you feel your existence is being mocked or denied, but please see that just because she says some things and that I agree with a lot her views doesnt mean that I believe you arent valid, you and your fabulous rainbow beard are very much real to me. Thank you for that btw ^_^

We can agree to disagree on this matter I think :) I don't want to lose our friendship

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ChillaKilla said:

We can agree to disagree on this matter I think :) I don't want to lose our friendship

  What?! Why wouldnt we be friends!? Don't say that! :( 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has been created to alert the community to a new policy. Please keep comments limited to questions, clarifications, and discussion of the policy itself. If you would like to talk about trans identities, please feel free to create a new thread in the appropriate forum.

 

Thank you,

Heart

Admin

9 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ban anyone who doesnt have fun from jff

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, King of the Forest said:

  What?! Why wouldnt we be friends!? Don't say that! :( 

Oh no of course we will! I was just saying I'm not gonna let such a thing bring us apart :) 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ChillaKilla said:

Oh no of course we will! I was just saying I'm not gonna let such a thing bring us apart :) 

giphy.gif?response_id=591e1f4ab738260db3

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Heart said:

Edit: Holy cow this thread is moving fast. I started writing this response an hour ago, and I think it's still valid, so I'll post it anyways. Here goes:

 

As for the mansplaining topic, I have some thoughts I'd like to share. Please keep in mind that these are my own thoughts and a reflection of how I would argue in the case of a warn, but all disciplinary actions are a team discussion and are come to by consensus, so I cannot guarantee this is how it would play out. If, however, anyone feels that they have been wrongly suspended from Gender Discussion for a warn that was sexist but not transphobic, then I encourage them to appeal it. So here is my take on the difference between sexism and gender identity policing. I'll use an example first, in the spoilers because it's a bit long and contains an example of transphobia, and then try to follow it up with my generalized philosophy.


 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

I'm a femininely-presenting AFAB. I'm also working on my PhD in physics. So, say we're all having a discussion about the electromagnetic force, and someone (say, a trans man) comes up and tries to explain to me what the electromagnetic force is. I can react in several ways.

 

1) One way is to say "Hey there, I'm actually a physicist and I study this for a living. Here are some nuances that you may have not understood properly, and here are some sources to back me up on that. And by the way I wrote a paper in Nature on that very topic, so here's a link in case you're interested." That's usually the best way to deal with it. But that takes patience if it happens over and over again, and maybe I snap. I could do that many ways, but here are three I'd like to contrast:

 

2) I say "Dude, stop mansplaining! I'm a physicist, you don't think I know exactly how the electromagnetic force works? Get out of here."

 

3) I could say "Girl, stop pretending to be a physicist and stop pretending to be a man. We both know that neither of those are true!".

 

4) "Yeah but you say you're trans too, and all trans people suck at physics!"

 

In #2, I am discounting what he has to say because he's a man, but I'm not invalidating his gender; I could say this to any man, cis or trans. In #3, I am invalidating his gender. So, to me, #2 is sexist but #3 is a gender identity invalidation. And in #4 I'm being transphobic by making a sweeping negative generalization about trans people.

 

 

So. The example above is meant to illustrate what the difference is, to me, between sexism and gender identity invalidation and transphobia. If a statement can be taken as a harmful generalization of everyone of a gender (eg man) regardless of if they are cis or trans, then it's sexism. If a statement is implying or saying that someone is not really the gender they identify as, then it's a gender identity invalidation. And if a statement says or implies that all trans or genderqueer people are lesser in some way, then it's transphobia.

 

Don't get me wrong; it's possible to be sexist and transphobic at the same time. In that case, it is still transphobia, so the suspension would still be applied. But I hope the above helps explain the difference between mansplaining and transphobia.

 

I have to run off for now, but I'll try to be ack to answer any follow up questions in an hour or two. I really appreciate this conversation, and the chance to clarify some definitions.

This just leaves me with more questions:

 

But the new rules aren't just Transhphobic offense it says "gender identity related offences". The "such as identity policing with genders" part is in parentheses as an example. I never was confused about whether or not mansplaining was sexist or transphobic. I am confused if that would be considered a gender identity related offences as it is particularly targeting someone's gender identity or are we considering it attacking their biological sex.

 

Is this rule just being applied to Transgender and genderqueer gender's or does it include protecting cis-gender identities as well?

 

If you're only applying this rule to identity policing with genders and Transphobia why not right that and not "gender identity related offences"?

 

What does "gender identity related offences" mean to the admod team? It seems most answers discuss just the Transphobia and Identity policing and ignore this part of the rules. 

 

Would emasculating someone be considered "gender identity related offences"? For example "Stop your whining you stupid baby, you need to grow up and grow a pair."

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ChillaKilla said:

You really DO like Blaire White- even adopting her policy of misgendering anyone you don't like!

Im not "adopting her policy". On AVEN I'll follow the rules and call people their preferred pronouns. But I'm not "misegendering" Riley Dennis, I'm just not pandering to his sexual feitshes, that's gross. But you can have your opinion and I'll have mine. I know that the admin posted an official  comment requesting this be kept on topic, so I'm wondering would a discussion like this (the comments I've made regarding Riley J Dennis, who seems bent on belittling the suffering of transpeople) fall under this new ToS change, or does it only apply to people actually on the site? (So if Riley joined, obviously pander to his sexual fetishes and his desire to take any real meaning away from the term "trans") ??

 

3 hours ago, ♣Ryan♣ said:

This just leaves me with more questions:

 

But the new rules aren't just Transhphobic offense it says "gender identity related offences". The "such as identity policing with genders" part is in parentheses as an example. I never was confused about whether or not mansplaining was sexist or transphobic. I am confused if that would be considered a gender identity related offences as it is particularly targeting someone's gender identity or are we considering it attacking their biological sex.

 

Is this rule just being applied to Transgender and genderqueer gender's or does it include protecting cis-gender identities as well?

 

If you're only applying this rule to identity policing with genders and Transphobia why not right that and not "gender identity related offences"?

 

What does "gender identity related offences" mean to the admod team? It seems most answers discuss just the Transphobia and Identity policing and ignore this part of the rules. 

 

Would emasculating someone be considered "gender identity related offences"? For example "Stop your whining you stupid baby, you need to grow up and grow a pair."

 

 

*Also wondering these things* .. although I'm pretty sure calling someone a stupid baby would fall under the personal insults part of the ToS. Also is having the opinion that actually there are only two genders, and everything else is a gender *experssion* something thats allowed to be discussed on AVEN? Or is that out the door now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heart is much better at explaining this stuff than I, but I will do my best to answer your questions :)

 

3 hours ago, ♣Ryan♣ said:

But the new rules aren't just Transhphobic offense it says "gender identity related offences". The "such as identity policing with genders" part is in parentheses as an example. I never was confused about whether or not mansplaining was sexist or transphobic. I am confused if that would be considered a gender identity related offences as it is particularly targeting someone's gender identity or are we considering it attacking their biological sex.

The line is that if it invalidates/insults/so forth how a person are identifying, it's gender identity relating. If it's just insulting your gender, it's not considered a gender identity related offense.

 

I'm going to put an example in a spoiler as it's not nice ;)

 

**** Trigger Warning for Transphobic Example ****

 

Spoiler

If UserA was talking with a friend who is a transwoman and said: "Ugh, as a woman, you are really moody" that would be insulting/judging her gender, but not how she was identifying, just insulting the gender.

 

If UserA was talking with that transwoman friend and said "Ugh, as a transwoman, you are a pain when you ask me to user she/her pronouns when I've always known you as a dude" that would be insulting/invalidating of their identity specifically as UserA wasn't being accepting of their identity.

 

 

3 hours ago, ♣Ryan♣ said:

Is this rule just being applied to Transgender and genderqueer gender's or does it include protecting cis-gender identities as well?

Because it's focused on transphobic and gender identity issues, it's less likely to "protect" cis-gender, though it could.

 

For example, if UserA said to a male cis user that "you aren't cis because you don't like sports like all boys do. You must be a transwoman or non-binary or something" then that would be invalidating of that persons gender identity. Then for this case, if a warning was deemed needed in this case for that invalidation of gender identity, then the ban would be put in place.

 

 

3 hours ago, ♣Ryan♣ said:

If you're only applying this rule to identity policing with genders and Transphobia why not right that and not "gender identity related offences"?

Admods have seen a number of transphobic and gender identity related offenses reported, this gives the team the ability to judge when specifically a users gender identity is being judged/insulted/invalidated/so forth. Saying "gender identity related" is meant to be clear that anyone insulting/judging/so forth someone for how they identify, not just what their gender is, is subject to this ban. 

 

4 hours ago, ♣Ryan♣ said:

What does "gender identity related offences" mean to the admod team? It seems most answers discuss just the Transphobia and Identity policing and ignore this part of the rules. 

It's true that a lot of things can fall under both transphobic and gender identity related offenses. But, as seen in the cis male example I gave above, not every case would be transphobic, it's specifically gender identity related. I'll include a few examples in this spoiler:

 

Spoiler

- Intentional misgendering

- Claiming an identity isn't valid (there can be discussions about labels, but it follow similar guidelines to sexuality definition debates; Don't tell a user their gender isn't valid, as they are the only ones who can label themselves, but discussing different labels and comparing them is fair)

- Telling someone they aren't ____ because they haven't experienced ______ ("you aren't non-binary because you haven't felt like you hated the gender you were born with")

 

 

4 hours ago, ♣Ryan♣ said:

Would emasculating someone be considered "gender identity related offences"? For example "Stop your whining you stupid baby, you need to grow up and grow a pair."

It wouldn't because it's not insulting their identity, rather it's insulting their gender. You aren't denying that they are male, you are insulting something about them that is male.

 

 

I feel like after all these questions it might seem like splitting hairs, but I do hope it makes it clearer so users feel confident they know the guidelines to post by :)

 

 

I'm sure I'm sounding like a broken record, but I'll repeat once more for good measure, admods are not changing how they judge reports. Nudges and warnings have been given out for transphobia and gender identity related offenses many times. It's just that from now on, we are adding the ban to these offenses.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Pan. said:

Im not "adopting her policy". On AVEN I'll follow the rules and call people their preferred pronouns. But I'm not "misegendering" Riley Dennis, I'm just not pandering to his sexual feitshes, that's gross. But you can have your opinion and I'll have mine. I know that the admin posted an official  comment requesting this be kept on topic, so I'm wondering would a discussion like this (the comments I've made regarding Riley J Dennis, who seems bent on belittling the suffering of transpeople) fall under this new ToS change, or does it only apply to people actually on the site? (So if Riley joined, obviously pander to his sexual fetishes and his desire to take any real meaning away from the term "trans") ??

Remember that this isn't a change to what rules need to be followed, just a change to the action that will be taken by admods for a breach of this kind.

 

If before this was put in place, a user would get action because of something that was posted, then they would get action from this point forward as well.

 

I'll put an example in a spoiler because the example isn't nice....

 

**** TRIGGER WARNING, TRANSPHOBIC EXAMPLE ****

 

Spoiler

Prior to this change, if UserA said "Trans people are such total idiots, being a gender other than how you are born isn't a thing" they would get a warning for insulting/invalidation/transphobia

 

After this change, if UserA said "Trans people are such total idiots, being a gender other than how you are born isn't a thing" they would get a warning for insulting/invalidation/transphobia AND a ban from Gender

 

This is all that changes, an additional action.

 

 

1 hour ago, Pan. said:

*Also wondering these things* .. although I'm pretty sure calling someone a stupid baby would fall under the personal insults part of the ToS. Also is having the opinion that actually there are only two genders, and everything else is a gender *experssion* something thats allowed to be discussed on AVEN? Or is that out the door now

I answered Ryan's questions in my post above :)

 

Once again, if it was allowed before, it is allowed now. However, I will say that that particular conversation might get very tricky fast. It would be wise to pepper one's posts with "I think"s or "I feel"s or "in my experience"s... If it comes off as a "this is how it is, period" in might well seem bigoted. I can't tell you exactly what the ruling would be on such cases, as it would be up to admods as a team, but I would stress that users be careful during such debates.

 

However, I know you, Pan, are very good at explaining your views in "tricky" debates. I would guess if you apply those same skills when discussing gender, you will have few problems if any :)

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, ChillaKilla said:

I'm your nonbinary worst nightmare.

I think I might use this for the gender on my profile :P

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/05/2017 at 7:03 AM, ChillaKilla said:

I'm your nonbinary worst nightmare.

Milo Stewart took that award home a long time ago :P "all men are sexist, all white people are racist, all cis people are transphobic.." *shudder*

 

18 hours ago, Puck said:

Remember that this isn't a change to what rules need to be followed, just a change to the action that will be taken by admods for a breach of this kind.

 

If before this was put in place, a user would get action because of something that was posted, then they would get action from this point forward as well.

 

I'll put an example in a spoiler because the example isn't nice....

 

**** TRIGGER WARNING, TRANSPHOBIC EXAMPLE ****

 

  Hide contents

Prior to this change, if UserA said "Trans people are such total idiots, being a gender other than how you are born isn't a thing" they would get a warning for insulting/invalidation/transphobia

 

After this change, if UserA said "Trans people are such total idiots, being a gender other than how you are born isn't a thing" they would get a warning for insulting/invalidation/transphobia AND a ban from Gender

 

This is all that changes, an additional action.

 

 

I answered Ryan's questions in my post above :)

 

Once again, if it was allowed before, it is allowed now. However, I will say that that particular conversation might get very tricky fast. It would be wise to pepper one's posts with "I think"s or "I feel"s or "in my experience"s... If it comes off as a "this is how it is, period" in might well seem bigoted. I can't tell you exactly what the ruling would be on such cases, as it would be up to admods as a team, but I would stress that users be careful during such debates.

 

However, I know you, Pan, are very good at explaining your views in "tricky" debates. I would guess if you apply those same skills when discussing gender, you will have few problems if any :)

Thank you for clearing all that up :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now